University of Queensland School, Institute and University Centre Review Process To achieve improvement through: Self assessment Benchmarking Critical reflection Forward planning Peer review

Early review planning 12 months prior to review: Head/Director and support staff attend briefing session presented by President of the Academic Board Information on review committee nominees, terms of reference, duration and timing sought from School/Institute/Centre Academic Board Standing Committee and Vice-Chancellor’s Committee determine the composition of the review committee, terms of reference and duration 8-12 months prior to review: External members invited, and review date set based on availability Submission is requested from the School/Institute/Centre, due approximately one month before the review date 1 month prior to review: School/Institute/Centre finalises submission Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Review committee Institute Reviews School Reviews Centre Reviews Schools, institutes and centres are asked to nominate potential committee members. The reviews procedures (PPL 1.40.06 and PPL 1.40.08) request external nominees with ‘nationally/internationally recognised discipline expertise and knowledge, drawn from a range of institutions, including international partner or benchmarking universities or institutes’. School Reviews Committee: 2–3 externals (1 serves as Chair) Academic Board Standing Committee representative Member from a cognate field (generally Head of a cognate school) Secretary: Faculty Executive Officer Institute Reviews Committee: 3 externals (1 serves as Chair) Academic Board Standing Committee representative Senior researcher from cognate Institute, nominated by Provost  Secretary: Deputy Director (Operations) from a cognate Institute Centre Reviews Committee: 2–3 externals (1 serves as Chair) Academic Board Standing Committee representative Associate Dean (Research) from a relevant Faculty Director/senior researcher from a cognate Centre Secretary: Deputy Director (Operations) from a cognate Centre Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Review committee Conflict of interest When nominating external committee members, the following conflict of interest criteria applies. Nominees must not: be involved in joint projects with staff in the School/Institute/Centre currently in the last five years be frequent visitors to, or have had a close or prolonged association with, the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty in the last five years have been former staff of the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty within the last seven years be currently seeking employment with the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Submission to the review committee SECTION 1: Overview/Summary of the submission SECTION 2: History of the School/Institute/Centre Origins and histories of composite disciplines Teaching programs closely associated with the Unit (if applicable) Amalgamations of disciplines Management structures and leadership positions established (e.g. Chairs, executive committees, advisory boards) and the rational for creation Major outcomes of previous review (if applicable) Major changes since previous review SECTION 3: School/Institute/Centre at Present Analysis of School's/Institute’s/Centre’s goals and priorities Presentation of 3 types of data: Core data Data specific to Discipline/School/Institute/Centre Benchmark data Data is linked to the following key areas of performance: Schools: Governance and Vision Teaching and Learning Research and Research Training Internationalisation Professional and Industry Links Alumni and Community Links Equity and Diversity Organisation and Administration Resources Faculty and University- wide Issues Institutes: Purpose and Goals Assessment of Activities Role within the University Governance and Management Discovery Resources Education Links with other University Units Organisational Structure Engagement Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Submission to the review committee SECTION 4: School/Institute/Centre in Future This section should be the focus of the submission Description of plans and strategies for future development and improvement over next three to five years Goals and courses of action tied to: conclusions drawn from performance as indicated by data from Section 3 areas of potential growth School's/Institute’s/Centre’s potential contribution to strategic plans of Faculty and University Consideration given to School's/Institute’s/Centre’s human, financial and physical resources SECTION 5: Appendices Appendices should only be relevant, and not duplicate information readily available on School/Institute/Centre websites that is not related to the submission. Recommended submission length: Submission: around 50 pages Appendices: up to 100 pages Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Pre-review planning 6-8 months prior to review: The Academic Board office will: Request from the Head of School/Director names of individuals to make submissions to the review, and individuals to invite to a stakeholder dinner. Invite written submissions from: All School/Institute/Centre staff and students Senior Management Members of relevant Faculty Boards University community External individuals/organisations 1-2 months prior to review: Collate submissions and prepare other material for review committee The Review Secretary will: Convene pre-review meeting of internal committee members Invite internal and external stakeholders to meet with review committee Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Review week schedule Evening prior to review: Third day of review: Review committee meets for informal dinner Discussion and progressive report preparation Additional interviews First and second days of the review: Interviews/discussions with: Final day of review: President of Academic Board, VC, Provost, DVCs, Dean of Graduate School, PVC (IE) Verbal presentation of draft recommendations to: Executive Dean (where relevant) Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre and Executive Dean (where relevant) Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre School/Institute/Centre staff; other University staff; students; external stakeholders President of Academic Board and Provost all School/Institute/Centre staff Inspection of School/Institute/Centre facilities Production of draft report before disbanding Informal lunch (or morning/afternoon tea) with staff and students Second day of the review: Review committee holds a dinner with external stakeholders (e.g. representatives of professions, business) *note: for Institute/Centre reviews, the standard duration is three days. Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Post-review process Two weeks after review conducted Final report completed. Report considered as confidential at this stage and distributed on a need-to-know basis School/Institute/Centre is sent a copy of report and requested to submit a response within one month Copies of report are distributed to: VC, Provost, DVCs, Dean of Graduate School, PVC (IE) Six weeks after review report received School/Institute/Centre sends response to review report to ABSC Assistant Secretary, via the Executive Dean’s/Provost’s Office for comment. Next Academic Board Standing Committee meeting ABSC considers the report and School/Institute/Centre response, and interviews the Head/Director and Executive Dean/Provost ABSC prepares a statement to accompany final report for consideration by the Academic Board Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Post-review process Next Academic Board meeting Academic Board considers the review report, response from the School/Institute/Centre, and comments from ABSC Subsequent to the Academic Board meeting Review report and statement from the Academic Board are sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval Once approved by the Vice-Chancellor, report becomes a public document Within twelve months of Vice-Chancellor approval of review report 12-month implementation report submitted to ABSC Implementation of review recommendations is the responsibility of the Head/Director in consultation with Executive Dean/Provost Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025B

Questions